Promotion Committees

Department of Medicine Promotions Committee

Terms of Reference

The University of Toronto, Department of Medicine (DoM), Senior Promotions Committee is responsible for the annual review of senior promotion dossiers (to associate professor and full professor) and provision of candidate recommendations to the Chair of Medicine and Decanal Promotions Committee.

Committee Membership

The committee is comprised of senior full-time clinical faculty members (full professor rank) who have been selected by the department chair in consultation with the committee chair to reflect the constituency of the department’s faculty. Appointed members serve for an initial three years and may remain on the committee up to five years in total.

Committee Mandate and Role

The committee will meet for three mandatory half-days in the autumn of each year. The committee will be supported by the DoM senior promotions administrator. Review documents will be provided to reviewers at least 21 days prior to the first committee meeting.

All committee members are expected to:​

Be versed on the policies and procedures of both the Faculty of Medicine and the Department of Medicine relating to senior promotions

Exercise strict confidentiality with regards to all promotion documents and committee discussions

Review and declare all potential conflicts of interest to the committee chair regarding promotion candidates. In the event of a conflict, the committee member will excuse themselves from all discussion and voting regarding the candidate in question

Review all materials provided relevant to their assignments and provide constructive, fair reviews of all assigned candidates

Committee members may not:

Provide letters of reference for promotion candidates

Serve on their local hospital promotion committee

Committee members may serve as hospital promotion mentors, but will abstain from voting for any candidates whom they have mentored.

The Committee Chair is expected to:

Ensure fair and transparent process of review.

Consistently remind committee members of importance of confidentiality in all promotion deliberations.

Ask all members to declare potential conflicts of interest at the beginning of each candidate review, and determine if the conflict is significant.

Specific Responsibilities

Each committee member is assigned five-six candidates to review, approximately half as primary reviewer and half as secondary reviewer. Assignments consider obvious conflicts of division and provide a mixture of rank and promotion pathways to each reviewer.

The primary reviewer will review the assigned candidate’s confidential promotion documents that present the details of his/her background and achievements since the last promotion. On the basis of these achievements, the primary reviewer will make a recommendation for or against promotion, and will justify the conclusion through a thorough analysis of the documentation provided in a written report to be submitted at the meeting in which the candidate will be assessed.

The secondary reviewer will review the candidate’s confidential promotion documents with the same level of detail as the primary reviewer and reach a decision for or against promotion. The secondary reviewer’s report is intended to offer additional context to the primary reviewer. The report is to be submitted at the meeting in which the candidate will be assessed.

All members of the committee will read all promotion documents and will have reached their own independent conclusion regarding promotion of each candidate. This allows for a frank discussion, leading to a recommendation by the committee to the Chair of Medicine.

The committee will vote by a show of hands for or against promotion and those with conflicts of interest will abstain from voting. The committee is not required to reach a consensus. In the event of a split vote or recommendations not to promote, the committee will discuss what additional documentation might be provided to change the decision, and these recommendations are submitted to the candidates’ physician-in-chief (PIC) offices to be addressed prior to the third and final committee meeting. At this final meeting, candidates in question will be given a re-vote, considering any additional materials, to confirm final recommendation to the Chair.

All members (excluding those with a declared conflict of interest) will participate in the vote.

Teaching Effectiveness Committee for Senior Promotion

Terms of reference

Purpose

The Department of Medicine Teaching Effectiveness Committee (DOMTEC) serves the role of reviewing the teaching dossiers of candidates for senior promotion (promotion to associate professor and full professor). All candidates must demonstrate a minimum of competence in teaching to achieve promotion. The DOMTEC verifies that such competence has been demonstrated. Additionally, the committee contributes to the appraisal of those candidates being considered for promotion on basis of 'Sustained Excellence in Teaching,' in parallel to the work done by the Department of Medicine (DoM) Senior Promotions Committee.

All DOMTEC decisions are communicated to the DoM Senior Promotions Committee by the DOMTEC chair to assist in their process or recommendation to the Decanal Promotion Committee.

Committee Membership

The committee is comprised of senior full-time clinical faculty members (full professor or associate professor rank) who have been selected by the department chair in consultation with the committee chair and hospital physicians-in-chief.

Committee Mandate and Role

The committee will meet two-three in the autumn, just prior to the meetings of the Department of Medicine Senior Promotions Committee. The committee will be supported by the DoM Senior Promotions Administrator. Review documents will be provided to reviewers at least 21 days prior to the first review committee meeting.

All committee members are expected to:

Be versed on the policies and procedures of the faculty of medicine relating to senior promotions for full-time clinical faculty members

Review and declare all potential conflicts of interest to the chair regarding promotion candidates

Act as reviewer for three-four assigned candidates using a template, to be submitted prior to the meeting

Review all materials provided that are relevant to their assignments and provide constructive, fair reviews of all assigned candidates

Avoid acting as internal referees for any senior promotion candidate. In the event that a committee member is acting as a referee, he/she will abstain from discussion and voting with regards to that candidate